On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 9:37 AM, John Levine wrote:
> In article x0hj...@mail.gmail.com> you write:
> >"Experimental" is perfectly fine. As I understand it, EAI did that first
> >and went to the standards track after it had some field use.
>
> That is true, but it's also true that the standards
On 12/22/2017 10:03 AM, John R Levine wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree about whether it's a good idea to
invent a new name for every version tweak that's not fully backward
compatible, particularly ones that don't change the parsing, just the
interpretation.
1. I believe such incompatibi
On Fri, 22 Dec 2017, Dave Crocker wrote:
3. Incompatible features: This is the interesting case, where the previous
and later versions have conflicting behaviors. My view is that this is not
merely a new 'version' but, rather, is a new protocol. However the protocol
itself -- not version -- ha
On 12/22/2017 9:37 AM, John Levine wrote:
Perhaps we should think about how to prepare
for that, e.g., the dread version number field.
To repeat my non-traditionalist view of version numbers: I've seen
claims of effective uses for them, not mere promises of future
usefulness, but I haven't r
In article
you write:
>"Experimental" is perfectly fine. As I understand it, EAI did that first
>and went to the standards track after it had some field use.
That is true, but it's also true that the standards track version of
EAI is fairly different from the experimental version, mostly by
lea
Thanks for this. I think we'd decided this wouldn't work (along with JISC, who
currently run the authoritative DNS for gov.uk). For the life of me, I can't
remember why though!
It's worth reading RFC 4592, a fairly dense description of how DNS
wildcards work, to be clear about what names *.go
John,
Thanks for this. I think we'd decided this wouldn't work (along with JISC, who
currently run the authoritative DNS for gov.uk). For the life of me, I can't
remember why though!
We'll have another look at it after the holidays. We have every intention of
making delegates responsible for do
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Seth Blank wrote:
> That is also what I remember, and why I proposed the Experimental
> Considerstions as part of the primary draft and not the usage guide.
>
> Kurt had some strong opinions on why they belonged in the usage guide,
> which I suggest we revisit in
